Effects of oxygen on lower limb blood flow and O2 uptake during exercise in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the effects of acute oxygen supplementation on lower limb blood flow (QLEG), O2 delivery (QO2LEG), and O2 uptake (VO2LEG) during exercise and to determine whether the metabolic capacity of the lower limb is exhausted at peak exercise during room air breathing in patients with COPD. METHODS: Oxygen (FIO2 = 0.75) and air were randomly administered to 14 patients with COPD (FEV1: 35 +/- 2% pred, mean +/- SEM) during two symptom-limited incremental cycle exercise tests. Before exercise, a cannula was installed in a radial artery and a thermodilution catheter inserted in the right femoral vein. At each exercise step, five-breath averages of respiratory rate, tidal volume, and ventilation (VE), dyspnea and leg fatigue scores, arterial and venous blood gases, and QLEG were obtained. From these measurements, VO2LEG was calculated. RESULTS: Peak exercise capacity increased from 46 +/- 3 W in room air to 59 +/- 5 W when supplemental oxygen was used (P < 0.001). QLEG, QO2LEG, and VO2LEG were greater at peak exercise with O2 than with air (P < 0.05). During submaximal exercise, dyspnea score and VE were significantly reduced with O2 (P < 0.05), whereas QLEG, VO2LEG, and leg fatigue were similar under both experimental conditions. The improvement in peak exercise work rate correlated with the increase in peak QO2LEG (r = 0.66, P < 0.01), peak VO2LEG (r = 0.53, P < 0.05), and reduction in dyspnea at iso-exercise intensity (r = 0.56, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The improvement in peak exercise capacity with oxygen supplementation could be explained by the reduction in dyspnea at submaximal exercise and the increases in QO2LEG and VO2LEG, which enabled the exercising muscles to perform more external work. These data indicate that the metabolic capacity of the lower limb muscles was not exhausted at peak exercise during room air breathing in these patients with COPD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".